To help Lieberman? Nope. The DCCC has targeted all three Connecticut Republican Congressmen for defeat in November. I'm working on what will be a fairly lengthy piece (MEGO material) concerning the Democrat '08 strategy as it appears from the application of available DCCC funds controlled by Clinton associate Rahm Emmanuel to various congressional races where the Democratic candidate actually has little chance of prevailing. The money is being spent to develop closer Clinton ties with campaign advisors who would be helpful to Miz Clinton in '08. A puzzle within that puzzle is the focus by Emmanuel on Connecticut. It really isn't a factor for '08 (maybe a tiny one if Rudy's the candidate) so my best bet is that Connecticut is where Emmanuel is looking for his excuse for having spent '06 money on Miz Clinton's '08 campaign (other ideas concerning the CT focus will be gratefully accepted). Emmanuel is dumping about $4M into ad buys in CT, which is quite a bit considering that Simmons seat in CT-02 is the only one in significant danger.

A significant presence by Giuliani at fund raisers and other events involving the Connecticut candidates would help them, help Giuliani in Connecticut (and New Hampshire and Vermont) and, as a sideline, help Lieberman. I'd rate his presence there to be as necessary for his aspirations in '08 as appearances in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

8
comments:

You mention money which brings up a question: where is Lieberman going to get money? Did he go easy spending on the primary and save a good bit of the $5M he supposedly had back in March? Lamont spent anywhere from $2.5M -$4M (the sources aren't clear) of his own money in addition to contributions. The Lamont family worth is upward of $90M. If Lamont really pulls out the stops the campaign could get pretty intense.

On July 19th Lieberman had about $3.5M left in the till. He actually had outspent Lamont by $6.5M to Lamont's $3.8.

Lieberman needs some new people - I don't believe his campaign staff understand the internet at all. From my perspective, the important thing is that he stay in the campaign and fight. I don't think he really has the stomach for it.

I'm a bit pessimistic about Lieberman myself. It seems that his campaign wasn't all that effective. I also find it curious that only some 10% of eligible voters went to the polls. Not so bad for a primary, I suppose, but it seems that for all the money spent there wasn't all that much passion aroused.

Did you see Instapundits link showing that Lamont was a red diaper baby? His dad Corliss was a long time communist from the 20's all the way to his death. Leonard Boudin also turns up, remember Kathy Boudin and the Weather Underground? It almost seems that the radical left is still resurfacing after all those years in the wilderness after WWII. Maybe it is a shame that red baiting is no longer acceptable campaign material. Lord knows if anyone ever deserved baiting more than the Nazis it was the Communists.

If you check a little deeper you find Tom Hayden and Pete Stark's fingerprints all over the place. I knew about Corliss and I think that a bunch of people in CT are going to know a lot more about him soon.

Lieberman didn't run much of a campaign - three termers get a bit blase about primaries.

What about Harold Ewen Ickes? Another son decended from progessives. Note that his dad didn't get along with Truman. I suspect Roosevelt was more radical than we give him credit for at this late date and that Truman was more centrist.

My own sense is that there was just a lot more political diversity back then. None of the various movements had yet committed the genocides and mass murders we have come to associate with them. There was hope, science was ascendent, Edison was still in his lab, it was the new century.

So maybe we are getting back some of that diversity. But the world has changed, Europe is falling by the way, and the left point of view just seems archaic. Doesn't have the same spice, IMHO.